Virgil's Paradigm vs. Ours

Most of us in modern society were raised either in urban cities or in housing developments of the suburbs. We did not construct our homes or make our food and clothes by hand. Nor did we learn from anything other than textbooks during our educations (rarely did we learn hands-on). Our tract homes and apartments were built by hired workers and most likely, we never even saw any of the construction first hand. Our food, packaged in boxes and bought from chain grocers, and our clothing, purchased in stores as well, come from all over the world, from places we have never seen or even heard of. Some of us were never taught how to cook and fewer of us know anything about making clothes. Our lives are handed to us and as a result, our views of nature are limited and impersonal. Unless we grew up on a farm or were introduced to other forms of nature besides those which are man-made (lawns, backyards, parks, and recreational areas), nature to us is an abstract concept. It is merely a background for our lives and the place we walk on (literally and figuratively) because most of us have not had the opportunity to work with the land itself. We see ourselves and our society in general as being at the center of everything and this belief system results in our anthropocentric paradigm. Since we are the most important part of this universe, we must strive for perfection or as near to it as possible. We frown upon our mistakes, seeing them as only failures and things to be avoided at all costs. After all, we are all-knowing, and we are each other’s best models. The universe was made for us, and therefore we reign. Right?

In contrast, Virgil, and presumably many others of his time, saw nature in a much different light. According to him, nature is at the center of the universe and we are not. Nature is our host and she guides us in everything we do and essentially, teaches us the ways in which to survive. We must rely on nature for our means of living (food, water, and shelter) and as a result, we must work directly with her. We must look to nature for our knowledge, we must learn by her ways, and we must be guided by her principles. And if we do not rely on her for direction, we will fail. However, our modern society’s definition of failure is much different from Virgil’s. Failure, as Virgil saw it, is an opportunity for humans to learn from their mistakes and expand their knowledge. Virgil’s definition of failure stems from his close relationship with mythology. As a strong follower of mythology, he believed that Jupiter, the god of the heavens and of weather, brought trouble into the world in order to teach man not to take for granted what he has and to be resourceful. As a result, Virgil believed that although mistakes are inevitable parts of life, they give us knowledge and are therefore beneficial. He believed that we are only human and cannot expect to know everything. This point of view suggests that Virgil had an ecocentric paradigm and though we do not know enough about Virgil to prove this as his belief system, the likelihood of it being so is significant.

So now, I must ask: is our paradigm really preferable to Virgil’s? Or is it merely destroying nature and preventing us from a closer relationship with the earth? I cannot speak for anyone besides myself, but the latter rings truer for me and as a result, I have begun to readjust my paradigm. Virgil’s teachings have shown me that having an intimate relationship with nature and holding an ecocentric view of the world is the only way in which our society will survive for any extended period of time. In Georgics, he seems to caution us of this and I only hope that we will take his warning seriously because if we do not, who knows how little time we have left? A century? A decade? Even less?